Texto íntegro 
Procedimiento : 2018/2151(INI)
Ciclo de vida en sesión
Ciclo relativo al documento : A8-0479/2018

Textos presentados :


Debates :

PV 16/01/2019 - 27
CRE 16/01/2019 - 27

Votaciones :

PV 17/01/2019 - 10.4

Textos aprobados :


Acta literal de los debates
Miércoles 16 de enero de 2019 - Estrasburgo Edición revisada

27. Informe anual de 2017 sobre el control de las actividades financieras del BEI (debate)
Vídeo de las intervenciones

  Puhemies . – Esityslistalla on seuraavana Georgi Pirinskin talousarvion valvontavaliokunnan puolesta laatima mietintö vuosittaisesta kertomuksesta 2017 EIP:n rahoitustoiminnan valvonnasta (2018/2151(INI) (A8-0479/2018).


  Georgi Pirinski, Rapporteur. – Madam President, as you pointed out, it is most welcome that we have President Hoyer here personally for this annual discussion of the topic of the control and financial activities of the European Investment Bank. I have had the privilege of closely following the activities of the bank from this perspective, both as rapporteur for the Committee on Budgetary Control and as shadow rapporteur, for getting on for five years. I am glad to present today a report which builds on Parliament’s positions from previous years and which has received very strong support in the committee.

I would also like to highlight that the report points out that the bank’s lending activities for 2017 amounted to EUR 69.9 billion and the conclusion of the audit committee was that the financial statements adopted by the EIB Board of Directors present a true and fair view of the financial position of the bank as of 31 December 2017 and of the results of its operation and cash flows for 2017 in accordance with the applicable accounting framework.

At the same time, the report refers to a continuing concern having to do with the geographical distribution of the signatures of the bank, a theme which we have been returning to over the past years. For this year the data shows, and the report underlines, the highly worrying fact that in 2017 half of the Member States received 80% of the total EIB investment inside the EU, while the other 14 Member States received only 10% of this investment. I highlight this point in the light of what Commissioner Katainen, and to a certain extent President Hoyer, pointed out in the previous discussion, namely that the EIB is a passive recipient of project demands and, on the basis of its commercial assessment, finances some of these projects and not others.

This does not correspond to the statutory obligation of the bank to play an active role for the balanced development of the internal market, and for the social, economic and territorial cohesion. Certainly nobody questions the need for sound investments, but clearly the role of the bank cannot be reduced to a passive recipient of requests for financing.

There is a key requirement of the bank to perform, and this is pointed out in the recitals of the report, regular and thorough needs assessments in various sectors, and this is key for determining investment gaps and barriers in different investment regions, and identifying a pool of opportunities for potential for growth in job investment.

Regarding the governance of the bank, which is strictly within the Committee on Budgetary Control’s remit, I would like to point out that there has been progressive response by the bank in line with Parliamentary resolutions in making better access to minutes of the meetings of the various bodies of the bank, in improving the complaints procedures, which are applied by the bank. And in this regard, I would like to welcome the efforts made.

In conclusion, however, I would like to point out that there are still significant problems in respect of preventing conflicts of interests among the members of the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) investment committee and the enacting of more stringent rules and provisions to prevent conflicts of interests on the management board and board of directors, as well as regarding transparency and disclosure of information and intermediaries and final recipients, in relation to prevention of tax avoidance, fraud and corruption.

I realise I have overrun by 30-40 seconds. I will economise on my final remarks.


  Werner Hoyer, President of the European Investment Bank. – Madam President, it’s a great pleasure to address the plenary for a second time this evening and to discuss what the EIB Group, that is the European Investment Bank and the European Investment Fund, have done and will continue to do to help support Europe’s economy. In particular, I’d like to highlight how we are controlling our financial activities and address some of the points in the excellent report of the Budgetary Control Committee, for which I thank the rapporteur and the other Members of the European Parliament who have contributed to this.

Ladies and gentlemen, on 18 July 2018 we celebrated the completion of our pledge to deliver over EUR 315 billion of additional investment through EFSI - the Juncker plan. In fact, by mid-July we had surpassed this goal, providing support to investments through the mobilisation of EUR 335 billion, and we’re well on track on delivering the target of EUR 500 billion by 2020.

While this particular success story continues, the tasks and challenges for the Bank are not diminishing – and some of them have been raised earlier in the debate. We have just discussed some of them, for instance the ramifications stemming from Brexit, but these are only the most obvious ones. As the report of the Budgetary Control Committee indicates, there are also internal challenges for the Bank. I’d like to highlight two of these: reforming the governance, measuring additionality and fostering cohesion.

Honourable Members, the EIB remains at the forefront of international financial institutions when it comes to transparency standards and the quality of its governance. We follow international best practice and are aligned with other IFIs.

This holds true, for example, for the Bank’s transparency policy, which we revised in 2015 and will revise again next year. It also applies to our policies to combat fraud and corruption, as well as to enhance accountability.

In view of our dual role of delivering EU policy while also serving as a bank with high standards, we have intensified our cooperation with OLAF and the European Ombudsman, as well as continuing our ongoing exchange with NGOs. We take their demands and recommendations very seriously, and we just had a celebration of 10 years of the complaints mechanism at the Bank, together with European Ombudsman, the Secretary—General of the European Ombudsman, and that was a very encouraging event.

In February 2018, the Bank put into practice its new exclusion policy, which is fully aligned with the European Commission.

Last November, our governing bodies adopted a revised complaints mechanism policy. Actors such as the European Ombudsman and Transparency International, as well as the input from public consultations, were a crucial part of this process.

We are readying ourselves for future challenges and thereby strengthening the governance. We’re rolling out reforms to strengthen internal financing. In July, the EIB Board of Directors agreed on a roadmap of several governance changes. A total of 14 different actions have been set in motion and will be implemented during the first half of this year.

Without going into too much detail, let me highlight one particular aspect that is also the focus of this year’s committee report. We will enhance our internal control and risk management environment and strengthen the three lines of defence model across the Bank, both at the level of the EIB management committee, as well as among the Bank’s services. We will also make sure that one MC member oversees risk management and therefore will not be responsible directly for any first line activities.

Moreover, I would like to stress that the Bank is close to finalising the revision of its code of conduct. This is an important point raised not only by previous EP resolutions, but also by our own EIB audit committee.

Another example of how to strengthen our governance is the discussion we were having about introducing a group chief risk officer. It would be part of a revision of the EIB Group management charter. Additional actions aim to strengthen the decision-making capacity of the board, as well as the EIB supervisory framework. And finally, we are constantly revising and assessing the actual value-added that we create.

Let me therefore briefly touch upon my second point: additionality and cohesion. The concept of additionality is central to EFSI; however, it is already central to the EIB itself. If we are not needed, if the private sector can do the job, then we are redundant. So additionality is nothing new for us, but regarding EFSI, we are particularly keen to show that what we do is additional indeed.

As you are well aware, eligible projects must point to market failures or sub-optimal investment situations. Eligibility is only the precondition, whereas additionality ensures that within such eligible operations our EIB support provides a tangible contribution, and that it makes a difference.

EIB support must compliment support from other sources. The test of additionality is whether the intervention by the Bank facilitates or strengthens an eligible project from the public welfare perspective in a way that the market alone would not deliver, at least not to the same extent or in the same timeframe. The EIB is at the forefront among IFIs in measuring additionality, and we are always looking to improve. The EIB services have begun to recalibrate our current three pillar assessment.

Ladies and gentlemen, as the EU Bank, we look at structural investment needs and continue to support the EU’s transition to sustainable finance and sustainable climate. Therefore, our ambition to enhance growth, support employment and act as a catalyst for increased public and private sector investment remains key. We recognise that supporting innovation on the one hand, and deepening integration and cohesion on the other, are not a contradiction as they must be undertaken at the same time.

Only an integrated and inclusive financial and economic area can offer the required market dimensions to support innovation across Europe, and only an innovative and competitive Europe can provide the economic and political foundations for deeper integration and cohesion. Supporting cohesion and increasing convergence remains paramount to the Bank.

We will continue our activities to support cohesion via a mix of products, including structured programme loans, sector-specific programme loans and transport infrastructure loans. This made up 26% of our activities in 2015 and 2016. In 2017, we channelled 29.6% of all our lending to cohesion priority regions, just short of our ambitious target of 30%. In 2018, I’m happy to announce that we exceeded this target, with 31.8% of our lending for the year in cohesion priority regions. I’m also happy to announce that the Climate Action signatures have reached 30.3%, far ahead of the 26% objective.

Some worry that we cared too little about regional coverage. Admittedly, and deliberately, we do not apply regional or national quotas, but we also look at our activities through a regional lens. The example of EFSI shows that geographical diversification is improving. The share of the top three Member States – Italy, Germany and France – of the infrastructure window decreased, from 55% in October 2016 to below 40% in 2018. Indeed, measured as a share of GDP, which presents a much more accurate picture, the figure is very different. For instance, it’s Greece, Estonia, Portugal, Bulgaria and Lithuania which are the top five recipients of EFSI financing by GDP in 2018, and that I think is a remarkably good result.

Ladies and gentlemen, let me conclude by assuring you that the EU Bank has delivered, and we will continue to deliver on its objectives. Through its financial firepower, including the Juncker plan, we provide a very significant contribution to jobs and growth in the EU and external action outside the European Union. We are the Bank of the EU, and that means we are more than the sum of our national interests and an excellent example of Europe in action. We are in, a certain way, the good news institution of the European Union.

As the EU Bank, I can assure you that we will stay unwavering in our support for the mobilisation of investment across the entire Union, and we will tackle the structural investment and cohesion challenges facing Europe and Europe’s single market, in particular when it comes to the role of Europe in the world, which is changing dramatically.



  Jyrki Katainen, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, first I want to thank Mr Georgi Pirinski, the rapporteur, and other Members who have participated in this work. It's an excellent report.

Everybody knows that the European Investment Bank (EIB) is an indispensable partner in financing infrastructure but also SMEs, innovations in various regions of Europe, climate action, sustainable transport, artificial-related investments etc.

The Commission strongly supports the Bank’s ambitious climate action strategy, matching the commitments of the Paris Agreement. Increased investment, especially renewable energy, energy efficiency and the circular economy, focusing on high impact activities and products is key in achieving this objective.

Also, advisory services to the companies operating in relatively new areas, like the circular economy or artificial intelligence, is very much needed and there is a need to look at how well financial needs match the palate or the services which are available. The Bank has the continuous challenge of checking whether the product is fit for purpose, because the economy around us is changing.

In the context of Brexit, we welcome the Bank’s utmost efforts to ensure that its ability to achieve its financing objectives is not affected. As for the Bank’s external lending activities, as we discussed under the previous point, the Commission and the EIB is working very closely together to find a workable solution to ensure operational predictability for the EIB post 2020.

It goes without saying that the EIB will continue to play a significant role in promoting the EU’s interests abroad and delivering on the Agenda 2030.


  William (The Earl of) Dartmouth, rapporteur for the opinion of the Committee on International Trade. – Madam President, to rephrase Mark Antony’s famous speech from Shakespeare’s Julius Cesar – I have come to praise the management of the European Investment Bank, not to bury them. The EIB’s commitment to proper commercial banking practice and its execution has been impressive. In consequence, the EIB now has a stronger balance sheet than, for example, Deutsche Bank.

To declare an interest, the British Government, has a 16% shareholding. That holding has a book value of EUR 39 billion. We want that value still to be there. It is therefore most important that the adherence to sound commercial principles is not diluted or limited by political imperatives. Demands for the politicisation of lending should be resisted even if, especially if, those demands come from the green parties and their hangers-on.


  Tamás Deutsch, a PPE képviselőcsoport nevében. – Tisztelt Elnök asszony! Nem az ilyenkor szokásos udvariasság jegyében szeretném azt elmondani, hogy gratulálok Pirinski úrnak, az előadónak, kiemelkedően színvonalas munkát végzett. Egy olyan jelentés fekszik most az Európai Parlament asztalán, amelyik kiválóan foglalja össze az Európai Parlamentnek az elmúlt években a költségvetési ellenőrző tevékenysége során az Európai Beruházási Bank működését illetően megfogalmazott ajánlásait, és ugyancsak megfelelő módon jelennek meg az Európai Számvevőszék éves jelentésében a bank működését javító szándékkal megfogalmazott kritikák.

Az Európai Beruházási Bank működéséről a jelen jelentésben is feltárt problémák, hiányosságok mellett is azt lehet mondani, hogy megfelelő. Két fontos kérdést szeretnék röviden említeni: egyrészt azt, amit Pirinski kollégám már említett. Természetesen az Európai Beruházási Bank egy bank, és természetesen lehet magyarázatokat találni az unión belüli hitelezési, támogatási, pénzkihelyezési politikájának aránytalanságait illetően, de egy mégoly jó magyarázat sem oldja meg a problémát. Nem lehet olyan helyzet, amely helyzetben az Európai Unió 2004 előtt már tagsággal bíró 15 országába koncentrálódik az Európai Beruházási Bank kihelyezési politikája.

És végül, de nem utolsósorban az Unión kívüli hitelezési politikában a nyugat-balkáni térség előtérbe helyezését tartjuk rendkívül fontosnak.


  Inés Ayala Sender, en nombre del Grupo S&D. – Señora presidenta. Doy la bienvenida, tanto al señor Katainen, por supuesto, como al señor Hoyer. Gracias por estar presente en este debate. Y, desde luego, agradezco y felicito al señor Pirinski porque ha vertido en este informe toda su sabiduría y el seguimiento de años y profundización en las intrincadas actividades del Banco Europeo de Inversiones, sobre todo teniendo en cuenta que seguimos planteando la necesidad de que el Tribunal de Cuentas pueda también auditar esas actividades. Yo querría simplemente pasar rápidamente por tres puntos que se repiten.

En primer lugar, el reequilibrio urgente del impacto territorial. Nos dice usted, señor Hoyer, y creo que lo he entendido bien, que 2018 supone —estamos hablando de 2017—un avance importante, y ha nombrado una serie de países, sobre los cuales usted ha dicho que eran los quintos en las actividades de 2018. Querría saber si son todos juntos o si todos están en el quinto lugar del ranking, porque creo que en el cuarto estaba España —me parece— o Italia, por lo tanto sería un avance considerable. Si son todos juntos, ya me parece peor.

En segundo lugar, el fenómeno migratorio. De nuevo nos volvemos a encontrar con problemas de que en África, como usted ha dicho —por no hablar de Oriente Medio, pero sobre todo en África—, nos encontramos con que, en relación con créditos, microcréditos o microempresas, su banco ha afirmado múltiples contratos, por lo cual estamos muy contentos. Pero cuando vamos a la implementación, nos encontramos con que la mayoría están a cero; y eso nos preocupa mucho, porque de alguna manera tenemos que conseguir que el Banco Europeo de Inversiones sea también un banco para las políticas de desarrollo de nuestros interlocutores principales.

En tercer lugar, la innovación. De nuevo nos encontramos con que las start-ups nos piden financiación y acaban yéndose a los Estados Unidos. Querría saber por qué. Y finalmente —permítame señora presidenta—, me he encontrado con la sorpresa de que no se miden los empleos creados por los proyectos. No hay ninguna fórmula para ver los efectos en el empleo de sus proyectos. Yo creo que es hora de que el Banco Europeo de Inversiones empieza a contabilizarlos.


  Ryszard Czarnecki, w imieniu grupy ECR. – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie prezesie Hoyer! Panie komisarzu, panie premierze Katainen! Po pierwsze, trzeba powiedzieć, że EBI to jest policy taker, a nie policy maker, co znaczy, że jednak wszelkie limity, gdy chodzi o kwestie klimatyczne, ustanawiają właściciele banku, czyli państwa członkowskie. To tak na dzień dobry.

Po drugie, oczywiście warto powiedzieć, że EBI działa na podstawie własnych polityk, ostatnia była polityka klimatyczna ustanowiona ponad 3 lata temu, ale też na podstawie mandatów udzielonych przez prawodawców, FC, plan Junckera. I tu są oczywiście różnice, bo limit 25 % w przypadku własnych polityk i 40 % w przypadku planu Junckera.

Jedno zastrzeżenie, które chciałem bardzo wyraźnie zgłosić, to jest to, że wzywanie, aby EBI finansowało tylko te projekty, które wykazały prawdziwą wartość dodaną dla lokalnej ludności, jest kontrowersyjne, ponieważ kwestie klimatyczne mogą powodować utrudnienia w realizacji inwestycji. I tutaj uważam, że jest to po prostu kontrowersyjne.


  Nedzhmi Ali, on behalf of the ALDE Group. – Madam President, first of all I would like to congratulate the rapporteur on the report. The pivotal role of the Bank is to ensure value-adding strategic public investment supporting sustainable growth and creating high value jobs within the EU. As an example, the overall financing as approved by the EIB Group within the EU in 2015-2016 will support EUR 544 billion of investment up 2.3% to GDP and create 2.25 million jobs by 2020. In 2017 the EIB successfully achieved its objectives, implementing EU policy in line with its mission, as detailed in its operational plan. The bank lending signature reached almost EUR 70 billion, of which 90% was within the Union. This financial resource was dedicated to four strategic areas: innovation and skills; infrastructure; environmental projects; and SMEs and midcaps. SMEs received more than 40% of the whole sum, which corresponds to their role as a backbone of the European economy. Results will be better with proactive policy and increasing the funding to these enterprises. We are satisfied with the conclusion of the audit committee that the financial statement, adopted by the EIB Board of Directors, presents a true and fair view of the financial position of the Bank and of the results of its operational and cash flows. Better corporate governance would be achieved paying greater attention to meet the long-term effects when defining investment actions in its funding decisions. In order to speed up the economic recovery in the Union and to help certain economic sectors and geographical areas to catch up, a major role is played in the European funding for strategic investments. With mobilised investment at the end of 2017 exceeding EUR 207 billion, EFSI is on the way to reach its goal. Despite the need to avoid some of the geographical imbalances, the improvement in transparency is visible with the publication of the EFSI Investment Committee decisions and the documents adopted by the steering board together within the minutes of the meetings.


  Indrek Tarand, on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group. – Madam President, I am not going to assess the comparison made by the Earl of Dartmouth of which is more commercial, the European Investment Bank or Deutsche Bank. I just would like to say that I am happy that we don’t compare the European Investment Bank with Danske Bank, which is involved in many dubious things.

Still, we would love to see, despite your denial Mr Hoyer, what the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) has said about your links to Volkswagen-gate, or whatever we may call their scandal, and transparency would not hurt you, and not us either.

Finally, I would like to say that de-investment is great promising policy and even though Mr Czarnecki maybe wishes your investment into the Polish coal industry we should support him as well by not investing in the non-renewable energy sector.


  Luke Ming Flanagan, on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group. – Madam President, with a few reservations it is a report I can support, so good work Mr Pirinski. The EIB could be well described as one of the EU’s success stories and in recent years especially it is good to see it investing in a growing number of small and medium enterprises, an area which has been badly let down by the conventional banking system, not just in my own country but right across the EU.

I know from speaking to constituents how difficult it is for SMEs to get access to finance in Ireland, even for the most viable of small companies, our banks, every one of which was bailed out by the people, have abdicated the most basic responsibility for that sector, injecting finance into the real economy. Of course we wouldn’t need that injection were it not for the actions of another, by far more devious EU institution, the ECB.

Page 96 of its 2017 report, which we debated yesterday, contains the following paragraph: ‘The reduction of IBRC-related assets by the Central Bank of Ireland during 2017, mainly through sales of long-duration floating rate notes, is a significant step in the direction of the necessary full disposal of these assets. A more ambitious sales schedule would further mitigate the persisting serious monetary financing concerns’.

I’ll translate that for you. The weaponisation of the euro by the ECB in Ireland continues, with more success recorded in 2017 when the Central Bank of Ireland destroyed another EUR 4 billion. This ongoing destruction of borrowed billions is the result of a bailout of two insolvent non-systemic banks that the latter became IBRC, a bailout that we, the ECB, forced on the Irish government through blackmail and threats. Ireland has already destroyed EUR 19 billion with plans to destroy a further EUR 12 billion in coming years.

All this has been achieved without a shot being fired, and without a word of protest from the Irish Government. Once again I compliment Mr Pirinski on his report and complement the EIB on its work. Would that the ECB would take note.


  Gerolf Annemans, namens de ENF-Fractie. – Voorzitter, de Europese Investeringsbank moet volgens mij geen voertuig van politieke modeverschijnselen worden. De Commissie begrotingscontrole doet hier een aanbeveling om de investeringen van de Europese Investeringsbank in groene energie nog verder uit te breiden, terwijl ze nu met 25 % al boven de doelstelling van 22,8 % zitten.

De Commissie zelf heeft overigens haar eigen bescheiden begrotingsdoelstelling van 20 % niet eens gehaald op dat punt. De Commissie begrotingscontrole wil bijvoorbeeld ook dat de Europese Investeringsbank meer gaat investeren in achtergestelde regio's: vaak regio's met institutionele problemen, slechte infrastructuur, braindrain, onbetrouwbare instituties.

Het moderniseren van de marktinfrastructuur is echter niet de rol van de Europese Investeringsbank, maar veeleer het investeren in de marktcontext binnen de vier kernthema's van de bank: kleine en middelgrote ondernemingen, energie, infrastructuur en vervoer. De Europese Investeringsbank moet vooral een bank blijven die bankabele projecten medefinanciert en geen politiek gestuurd vehikel zijn. Om die reden zal ik mij onthouden.


  Ingeborg Gräßle (PPE). – Frau Präsidentin, Herr Vizepräsident, Herr Präsident Hoyer, liebe Kolleginnen und Kollegen! Es ist ja nicht so einfach, wir freuen uns, dass Sie hier sind.

Ich will jetzt auch versuchen, nicht am Thema vorbeizureden. Wir wissen, was wir an Ihnen haben. Sie haben in der Governance der Bank bedeutende Fortschritte erzielt. Dafür sind wir dankbar und haben trotzdem noch ein paar Vorschläge dazu, was uns fehlt.

Ich möchte an das Höchstmaß an Transparenz erinnern und eine wirkliche Rechenschaftspflicht bei den Tätigkeiten der EIB – vor allem auch uns gegenüber. Ich werde versuchen, dann auch eine angemessene Beratungszeit für die EIB im Ausschuss zu finden.

Ich glaube, dass wir, was Transparenz betrifft, noch besser werden können, sowohl bei den Leitungsgremien als auch bei der operationellen Ebene. Wir finden, dass die Rechenschaftspflicht der EIB zu oft aus Hochglanzbroschüren besteht. Wir hätten es da gern ein bisschen konkreter und auch ein bisschen ausführlicher. Deswegen können Sie uns gerne auch damit belästigen, welche Verwaltungskosten Sie denn genau haben und welche einzelnen Vorgänge wie viel kosten. Sie können uns gerne auch mit einem Monitoring der von der EIB finanzierten Projekte nach sieben Jahren belästigen. Ich fände das ganz spannend, wenn wir das hätten.

Es wäre auch schön, wenn wir wüssten, wie viel private Mittel im Rahmen der Projekte der EIB angezogen werden, weil wir den Eindruck haben, dass öffentliche Banken sehr oft nur öffentliche Mittel anziehen. Deswegen ist hier durchaus noch Raum nach oben.

Ich möchte auch darum bitten, dass die Bank in Sachen Frauenförderung mehr macht. Es ist schön, dass Sie von sieben Männern umgeben sind, aber da könnte man ja auch noch eine Frau vermuten. Danke schön! Schön, dass Sie da sind.


  Bogusław Liberadzki (S&D). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Panie Komisarzu! Panie Prezesie Hoyer! Pozwolą Panowie, że nie będę pytał o kobiety. Zaczniemy od spraw bankowych. Mamy bardzo dobre sprawozdanie, bardzo dobrego sprawozdawcę, pana Pirinskiego, i z tego nam się rysuje następujący obraz: zdrowa instytucja, zorientowana na tzw. performance orientation, funkcjonująca w dążeniu do osiągnięcia celów, które sobie stawiamy jako Unia Europejska. Instytucja, która jednocześnie łączy tę funkcję z bardzo dobrym funkcjonowaniem w charakterze banku inwestycyjnego. To jest dla nas bardzo ważne – banku inwestycyjnego.

Wyrażam zadowolenie, że rzeczywiście Europejski Bank Inwestycyjny wspiera rozwój gospodarczy, wzrost, ale również i rozwój, wyrażam duże oczekiwania, że połączenie środków EFISu i Europejskiego Banku Inwestycyjnego, które mogą przyciągać również źródła prywatne, czyli ten blended financing, może spowodować, że nasza zdolność inwestycyjna w Unii jako całości będzie rosnąć.

Odnotowuję w roku 2017 większą poprawę tej równowagi geograficznej, ale zwracam się do Pana, Panie Prezesie – w ramach nie tylko doradztwa i usług doradczych – również być może o rozwój umiejętności korzystania z nowych instrumentów finansowych, zwłaszcza w tych państwach, które nie są jeszcze tak doświadczone w korzystaniu z nich.


  Νότης Μαριάς (ECR). – Κυρία Πρόεδρε, κύριε Hoyer, η παροιμία λέει ότι η σιωπή είναι χρυσός. Δεν μου απαντήσατε τίποτε για τη Fraport που σας είπα προηγουμένως. Ξέρετε, οι ξένοι επενδυτές πρέπει να φέρουν ζεστό χρήμα για να είναι επενδυτές, να μην χρησιμοποιούν τα ευρωπαϊκά κονδύλια για να κάνουν δήθεν επενδύσεις και μάλιστα να αρπάξουν δημόσια περιουσία. Δεύτερη περίπτωση: Διεθνής Αερολιμένας Αθηνών. Οι διεθνείς επενδυτές πήραν από εσάς, από την ΕΤΕπ δηλαδή, 250 εκατομμύρια ευρώ για να μπορέσουν να βρουν τα λεφτά να επεκταθεί η σύμβαση για 20 χρόνια. Ο TAP: 1,5 δισεκατομμύριο ευρώ δώσατε στις πολυεθνικές, στη BP. Και επειδή ο κύριος Katainen δεν κατάφερε να σας προστατεύσει. Διότι αυτά που δώσατε στις μικρομεσαίες επιχειρήσεις, τις ελληνικές, είναι ψίχουλα. Στο EFSI λειτουργεί και η Ελλάδα και είναι πρωταθλητής. Ξέρετε γιατί; 280 εκατομμύρια ευρώ στη Fraport, 150 εκατομμύρια ευρώ στην Cosmote, δηλαδή στη Deutsche Bank, 350 εκατομμύρια ευρώ σε γαλλική πολυεθνική που αγόρασε τη ΔΕΣΦΑ, την εταιρεία φυσικού αερίου, 700 εκατομμύρια ευρώ του EFSI για τον TAP. Για αυτό είναι πρωταθλήτρια η Ελλάδα. Γιατί ήρθαν τα χρήματα και πήγαν στις πολυεθνικές. Έτσι είναι η κατάσταση. Να λέμε την αλήθεια.


  Lambert van Nistelrooij (PPE). – Mevrouw de Voorzitter, heer Hoyer, commissaris, graag een aantal opmerkingen van de kant van het regionaal beleid, als coördinator voor de EVP in de REGI-commissie. Uw rol staat buiten kijf. De heer Hoyer heeft net ook al keurig aangegeven dat het nodige wordt bereikt om echt iets te doen aan het evenwicht in Europa na de crisis, want we spreken hier over 2017. Die taak moet u ook blijven uitvoeren en ik vind het ook heel goed dat in het verslag van de heer Pirinski die territoriale dimensie goed benoemd is. Dat is en blijft essentieel in Europa.

Tweede punt: uw adviestaak. Gisteren hebben we hier gesproken over InvestEU, de nieuwe hub die we maken, daar gaat u ook aan meedoen. Daar moeten we nog veel meer gericht aan doen. Ik doel op het programma Jaspers voor de regio's. Ik merk toch op dat er wat sleet in gekomen is. We steken daar geld in en ook adviseurs, die we beschikbaar stellen via u, maar het is niet meer zo effectief als in het begin. Ik denk dat we met die InvestEU-hub een versnelling kunnen maken en kunnen zorgen voor verbetering.

Derde punt: u krijgt een wat minder exclusieve positie in dat InvestEU en het is denk ik goed dat u ook leert met andere partners meer samen te werken. Ik denk dat één en één drie kan worden. U zei zonet: wij wachten op de initiatieven van onderaf. Gisteren zei de commissaris: dat InvestEU wordt veel meer beleidgestuurd, zoals het ook hier in vragen zojuist aan de orde was. Daar moet u over rapporteren. Zowel over Jaspers wil ik wat meer weten binnenkort, als ook over uw veranderende rol in de adviezen en natuurlijk, mevrouw Gräβle heeft gelijk: die governanceaspecten, daar moet u echt wat aan doen.


  Seán Kelly (PPE). – Madam President, we don’t see Mr Hoyer around these parts too often, nor should we because it’s not his place of work, but it’s good to have him here today and to listen to and to exchange discussions and views with him. Also, it’s an opportunity for us to compliment the good work that the European Investment Bank (EIB) has done in boosting investment and especially in helping to lead to growth and prosperity.

Over 60 years, EUR 1.1 trillion in 160 countries is pretty impressive. Above all, I think the role you have played in helping to get us out of the recession in the last number of years is very significant. And I think also you opened an office of the Bank in Dublin two years ago, with Mr Cormac Murphy at the helm, and I want to compliment him on the good work he is doing and indeed the cooperation he and Commissioner Katainen have given me when I’ve held several seminars around my constituency regarding the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI). These have been a huge success, as you pointed out. I am pleased that I was a rapporteur for his successor for the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy. We voted overwhelmingly today to continue on in that vein in InvestEU. I think that, as other speakers have said, we especially want to see more emphasis being put on supporting SMEs. I agree with the rapporteur when they said that we should have in particular more advisory capacities for SMEs so they can see the opportunities.

So, overall, a good job has been done. I welcome also what you said about Brexit, but I do hope that the Member States will show the same generosity in filling the gap left by the United Kingdom regarding our general budget.


Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot


  Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski (PPE). – Pani Przewodnicząca! Cztery główne punkty. Po pierwsze, wygląda na to, że EFIS się sprawdza, z czego się należy cieszyć. Wygląda na to – to po drugie – że założona dla tego programu dźwignia – niestety nie do końca, ale przypomnę, że została ona zaprojektowana niezwykle optymistycznie. Po trzecie, dysproporcje geograficzne słabną, co odnotowujemy z satysfakcją, ale niestety bardzo wolno. I po czwarte, ważne jest, abyśmy w większym stopniu i w większej dynamice niż do tej pory uwzględniali w projektach inwestowania technologie kosmiczne.

Co jest istotne? Istotne jest oczywiście planowanie. Proszę nie przyjąć tego jako złośliwość, tylko uwagę, bo wystąpienie było interesujące, ale pan prezes przekroczył swój limit czasu o 312%, a z kolei pan komisarz Katainen wykorzystał swój czas tylko w 69%. Dla nas w Parlamencie Europejskim jest ważne, aby reprezentować dużą precyzję i dużą dyscyplinę.


  Stanislav Polčák (PPE). – Paní předsedající, já jsem si vědom pozice Evropské investiční banky, která spočívá především právě v investování ve strategických investicích v udržitelném růstu a samozřejmě v posílení pracovních míst. Toto je důležité pro naše SME, samozřejmě pro regiony, které jsou znevýhodněny. Z tohoto hlediska i já chci podpořit hodnotu té rovnováhy, respektive územní soudržnosti, a pokud tady hovoříme o SME, tak bychom si ale také měli říct pravdivě, že podle výroční zprávy 40 % investic právě Evropské investiční banky šlo směrem k SME, takže v tomto směru, myslím si, ten cíl byl naplněn. Já bych spíše volal po určité předběžné opatrnosti v rámci těch půjček, které jsou poskytovány. Chápu, že je cílem i zvyšovat efektivitu poskytovaných půjček, ale v rámci volatilních finančních trhů je důležité podle mého názoru i hledisko předběžné opatrnosti, které tady úplně zmíněno nebylo.


(Pyynnöstä myönnettävät puheenvuorot päättyvät)


  Jyrki Katainen, Vice-President of the Commission. – Madam President, I would like to praise the work that Member Kelly has done in his constituency. I know he’s not the only one who has done the same, but I wanted to raise his work as an example because it is exactly what we need. We need to tell our citizens – our companies – what is available, how they can benefit from the European Investment Bank and what EFSI can offer, because otherwise there is a risk that people don’t know.

EU institutions and even our financial instruments are not as simple to understand as a normal bank loan from a local bank and that’s why we have to spread the word.

The reason why some Member States have benefited more than others and some regions have benefited more than others, for instance from EFSI, is mostly because there have been active politicians or public authorities which have told citizens and companies what is available.

My second point is just to thank Members for a substantial, civilised and rather consensual discussion on this issue. It’s a good basis to continue cooperation.



  Werner Hoyer, President of the European Investment Bank. – Madam President, I am now in a little bit of a dilemma. I’ve just been criticised for overdrawing my time account and I have roughly 20 questions that deserve precise answers, so please forgive me if I don’t address them all, but I promise again that you will get the answers in an appropriate way and as soon as possible.

A few general remarks.

The question of regional distribution begins to touch my nerves, because I think that everybody who has a feeling that his or her own country has maybe one per mil less than their neighbour is complaining about regional distribution. I told you the facts and figures about EFSI projects. In general, for all EIB projects the GDP-based distribution of the lending shows Greece number 1, Cyprus number 2, Portugal number 3, Croatia number 4 and Poland number 5. Is that so wrong?

I think this is exactly the priority setting that you’re expecting from us. So I think we are making real progress on that question.

Second issue, I just wanted to throw into the debate the word infrastructure, as I heard it several times. The European Union has a significant problem with infrastructure, the quality of the infrastructure. We are not investing enough in the maintenance of our infrastructures, which leads to a structural degradation of the quality. We need to address this issue. It is much more sexy to build new things than to maintain old ones, but this is an issue we have to address.

A very interesting question that somebody raised about start-ups. We have a serious problem here in corporate financing in Europe in general, but in start-up financing in particular. The fact is that roughly 75% of all corporate financing in Europe is via banks and not via capital markets. In the US it’s exactly the other way round, and this is the reason why sometimes, when an intelligent inventor develops something new, opens a market, develops a new product, then he or she might be very, very successful in the start-up phase but then comes growth financing and for growth financing we don’t have enough instruments.

I would love to see EIB activities developing further in this field because I hate seeing sometimes the most promising products leaving Europe and then being developed with huge money in other continents.

By the way, we measure the employment effects of our activities as precisely as we can, so maybe we can give you a couple of figures afterwards. But I just saw that, for instance, our analysis shows that in 2018 the number of SMEs supported was 285 000 and the number of jobs maintained in SMEs and midcaps was 3.9 million. We probably need to publish these figures more loudly and with more self-esteem.

Financing, well long-term financing.

Ladies and gentlemen, some of you want to see us as a commercial bank and some want to see us as a political instrument. We are both. We need to perform in several areas like a commercial bank because we are refinancing completely on the capital markets. We must have the trust and the confidence of the investors, otherwise they don’t give us 60, 70, 80 billion per year in EIB bond purchases.

On the other hand, we serve a public goal. Our objectives are set by you and the Council and the Commission, and that means that we have to reconcile the role of a public institution with commercial behaviour and expertise on the markets, and I think we are quite successful in doing that.

On the question of transparency, Ms Gräßle, I share your view and I think we are making progress, but we still can get better. But there are two small issues I would like to address.

Number one, please bear in mind that the EIB is a very lean institution. We have 3 500 people in the Bank. It sounds a lot, but we are doing twice the volume of the World Bank with this, and eight times the volume of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The World Bank has 18 000 people and the EBRD in London 2 500 people. So we are a lean institution. Sometimes we are criticised for not being represented visually with official offices in all Member States of the European Union. Yes, we try to be as efficient as possible. Please take this as a serious effort to be visible and available everywhere, but at a cost reduction or a containment strategy that we pursue.

And the last word, Ms Gräßle, on gender. Well, you run into open doors with me and whenever a Member State comes with a new proposal for the management committee and the Member State proposes a lady I will embrace that immediately. Spain has just done so and I’m very grateful for that, but we could definitely have more. But this is not in the hands of the management of the Bank. This is exclusively in the hands of the Member States. When it comes to our top managerial personnel we have made progress in the seven years that I am at the Bank now from 18% to 26% in the top positions. So we are moving in the right direction, but it cannot come overnight because you need a couple of years of career at the Bank in order to get there, but I promise you I’ll have that in view in each and every personnel decision we take as long as we don’t discriminate against the other gender.



  President. – Thank you very much, President Hoyer, I would like to point out that I am not sure that Mr Zdrojewski wanted you to speak less. Maybe he wanted Vice-President Katainen to speak more, so it’s a great privilege for us to have you here.


  Georgi Pirinski, Rapporteur. – Madam President, first, of course, I would like to thank all those who commended the report. I would like to point out that this is a report by the whole committee and I take certain credit in the name of the committee for what President Hoyer has highlighted – the steps in the direction of greater transparency and greater accountability. I believe that this is an example of the usefulness of these types of discussions on this type of the report. So I think we can be satisfied from that point of view.

I also would like to return to the geographical aspect. What the President has told us are figures which also show increased awareness and movement towards a better distribution. At the same time, you will agree that a proportion of 80-10 is anything but a sustainable balance and clearly, here, there is a challenge to be met.

I would also finally like to mention that the type of discussion we have had, the fact that the President has been as outgoing as possible – and a bit excited at the end, if I may say – is a good sign of commitment for further progress.


  President. – The debate is closed.

The vote will take place on Thursday, 17 January 2019.

Última actualización: 28 de mayo de 2019Aviso jurídico - Política de privacidad